Warning! Javascript is used extensively on the City of Bethlehem Web site, but your browser has disabled Javascript or does not support it. You may have a better browsing experience if you can enable Javascript.

Language Translation Disclaimer

The City of Bethlehem uses an independent third party tool to provide automated language translation. As with any machine translation, the conversion is not context-sensitive and may not fully translate text into its intended meaning. Therefore, the City of Bethlehem does not guarantee the accuracy of the translated text and it should not be relied upon for anything other than informational purposes. We recommend that if you experience difficulty, or doubt the accuracy of the translation, you contact the proper City of Bethlehem department for the information you seek. Please note that some applications and or services may not work as expected when translated.

BETHLEHEM CITY COUNCIL MEETING
10 East Church Street – Town Hall
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Monday, July 2, 2012 – 7:00 PM

INVOCATION

PLEDGE TO THE FLAG

Pastor Debra K. Hess, of St. Thomas United Church of Christ,
offered the invocation which was followed by the pledge to
the flag.

1. ROLL CALL

President Eric R. Evans called the meeting to order. Present
were Jean Belinski, Robert J. Donchez, Michael D. Recchiuti,
J. William Reynolds, and Eric R. Evans, 5. David T. DiGiacinto
and Karen Dolan were absent, 2.

PUBLIC HEARING

Proposed New Zoning Ordinance

Prior to the consideration of the regular Agenda items, President
Evans called to order a Public Hearing to receive public comment
on the proposed new Zoning Ordinance, Part 13 of the Codified
Ordinances of the City of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, enacted
by City Council on September 15, 1970 as Ordinance No. 2210,
and as amended, known as the Zoning Code, consisting of Article
1301 through Article 1327, inclusive, and Tables and Zoning
Map, to be re-enacted and replaced in its entirety with the
new Zoning Ordinance of the City of Bethlehem.

A. Director of Planning and Zoning – Proposed New Zoning
Ordinance

The Clerk read a memorandum dated June 15, 2012 from Darlene
L. Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, advising that
at its June 14, 2012 meeting the Planning Commission voted
3-0 to recommend approval of the new draft Zoning Ordinance
and accompanying map, last revised May 7, 2012.

B. Lehigh Valley Planning Commission – Proposed New
Zoning Ordinance

The Clerk read a letter dated May 31, 2012 from the Lehigh
Valley Planning Commission (LVPC) stating they considered
the proposed ordinance at the May 31, 2012 meeting pursuant
to the requirements of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning
Code. The Commission voted to return the following comments
for the City of Bethlehem’s use. The review focuses
on the consistency or inconsistency of the proposed ordinance
with the Comprehensive Plan – Lehigh Valley –
2030. Aspects of the proposed ordinance unrelated to the Comprehensive
Plan are considered matters of local concern only and are
not subject to comment. This review does not evaluate the
consistency of the proposed ordinance with the provisions
of State or Federal laws, including but not limited to the
Fair Housing Act. In a letter dated April 29, 2011, LVPC issued
comments about the draft of the ordinance last revised March
23, 2011. All of the comments contained in that letter are
also relevant to the current draft. A copy of the review is
attached. Bethlehem is urged to give renewed consideration
to these comments. No additional comments are offered. The
LVPC’s April 29, 2011 letter addressed the following
issues: Housing Issues, Land Use Issues, Environmental Protection,
and Transportation Issues.

Planning and Zoning Director Comments

Darlene Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, highlighted
the fact that there were many public meetings and meetings
with the Planning Commission on the proposed new Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Heller summarized the preparation and presentation of
the proposed new Zoning Ordinance that spanned several years.
The work originally started with the update of the 1991 Comprehensive
Plan for which the City received State funding, and the Zoning
Ordinance that had not been fully updated since 1970. A task
force was assembled with community representatives, monthly
meetings were held, interviews were held with key persons,
a resident survey was conducted, information was posted on
the City’s website, and a series of public meetings
were held. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2009 at which
time an outline of a proposed new Zoning Ordinance was developed,
and meetings with the task force continued, and public meetings
were held. Ms. Heller noted that some of the key points derived
from the public during the Comprehensive Plan review process
were maintaining the stability and current densities in the
neighborhoods, protection of environmentally sensitive areas,
encouraging more flexibility for development in the downtown
core areas. The Bureau wanted to produce a zoning document
that was more user friendly than the current Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Heller enumerated some of the larger changes in the proposed
new Zoning Ordinance. In the residential areas, planned unit
developments are no longer allowed, and certain areas of the
City were rezoned to reflect existing densities. In the RR
Residential zone, an open space development component was
created. For lots larger than three acres, there can be cluster
development as long as more sensitive areas are retained and
not impacted, and a small density bonus is allowed. In the
RS Residential District, multi-family dwellings are no longer
allowed. The RT and RM Districts are the two highest density
residential zoning districts. The desire was to consolidate
some of the zoning districts and eliminate some overlays,
so the RT and RM Residential Districts were combined. There
will no longer be an RM Residential District and those areas
are rezoned to RT Residential. While affirming that some relief
to commercial uses on corner lots is provided in the proposed
new Zoning Ordinance, Ms. Heller acknowledged the Bureau wants
to take a closer look at the Section about which some questions
have been raised. Ms. Heller noted that the provision does
allow for more flexible parking provisions, and reuse of corner
commercial uses as special exceptions rather than use variances.
A chapter was created for workforce housing incentives to
provide for more affordable units, and a density bonus if
the development is greater than 20 units and if it is in specific
zoning districts. Design guidelines have been created for
denser areas, including CB in the downtown areas, CL –
Limited Commercial District, and RT that is the most dense
residential zoning district. The design guidelines provide
for infill development to mirror the existing development
on the corridor and in the block. Building needs to be to
the average front lot line setback, pedestrian access needs
to be created from the front lot line, no residential units
can be located on the first floor unless it is a residential
street in the RT zone, parking needs to be at the rear or
to the side, and minimum building height is two stories. Ms.
Heller explained the intent is to create infill development
that would mirror the existing urban development. Flexible
parking provisions were created in view of the many applications
to the Zoning Hearing Board for parking. Ms. Heller noted
that many of the requests have been granted because there
is not a lot of opportunity to create additional parking in
denser areas. Some areas do not have a rear alley where parking
could be created. Provisions for shared parking were created,
and joint use parking is allowed. Criteria for reduction of
parking has been provided in certain instances, and can be
handled administratively. Green components were created within
the Zoning Ordinance, a density bonus is provided for LEED
construction of non-residential buildings, flexibility was
created for solar collection devices, and provisions were
created for wind turbines but wind turbines are not allowed
in residential districts. Focusing on environmental issues,
Ms. Heller stated an open space development option was created
in RR Residential, provisions for parking lot lighting to
minimize impacts on abutting properties in residential areas,
and tree conservation provisions were created requiring that
larger trees removed in a development need to be replaced,
and in some instances replacement with two trees is required.
Steep slope provisions were enhanced, a maximum slope to finished
grade provision was added, retention of a tree canopy is required,
and tree cutting is restricted. Ms. Heller advised that some
of the responses from the public concerned restrictive parking
requirements, and a request for a buffer zone between residential
and commercial was received that was addressed. A concern
about the maximum heights permitted in commercial zones was
addressed by creating a setback for the height in CB and CL
Districts from rear property lines where development would
abut a residential zone, and maximum height was reduced. Several
map changes were made, and additional definitions were requested
and included for auto body, auto repair, assisted living,
gas stations, meal centers, roadside stands and trucks. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposal in
May 2011, City Council held meetings during Fall 2011, and
earlier this year. In response to discussions at those meetings,
revisions were made to digital and electronic billboards,
a separation distance was created for licensed gaming facilities,
a 120 foot separation distance was created between night clubs
or taverns in residential zones, and the separation distance
between treatment centers and schools, parks, daycare centers,
and universities was created. Broad Street between Long and
Center Streets, and the former Bennett Toyota property on
West Broad Street were rezoned. Pointing out that a lot of
work was put into the proposal by the Administration, Council,
and the public, Ms. Heller noted that many community groups
also reviewed the proposal including the EAC, South Side Vision
2014, South Side Task Force, and neighborhood groups. Ms.
Heller emphasized that the Bureau wanted to make sure the
goals and objectives of the community were being met. Ms.
Heller affirmed there are some provisions that her office
and City Council agreed would be reviewed going forward, including
recreational vehicles, a demolition ordinance, floodplain
provisions, and corner commercial lots. Ms. Heller communicated
that consensus has been reached on a lot of large ideas in
the proposed new Zoning Ordinance, and the Zoning Ordinance
has been improved in many ways. She stated that while making
the community more development-friendly, it protects the neighborhoods.

Council Comments

President Evans thanked the Mayor, the Administration, Ms.
Heller, Joseph Kelly, Director of Community and Economic Development,
the Planning staff, and everyone who worked on the Zoning
Ordinance. Acknowledging it has been a long road, President
Evans highlighted the fact that it is a critical document
for the City to preserve the neighborhoods, and to allow for
commercial development. President Evans also thanked the citizens
who have been involved in the development of the proposed
new Zoning Ordinance. President Evans affirmed there were
neighborhood meetings, City Council Meetings, Committee of
the Whole meetings, and Planning and Zoning meetings at which
the complex and lengthy document was reviewed, and a number
of amendments were requested. Communicating that the document
will probably not satisfy each of the residents in the City,
President Evans stressed that a lot of work was done, and
the document can be amended as has been done throughout the
past years. President Evans emphasized that an excellent job
was done on such a large document that is being updated in
its entirety from the 1970 version. President Evans affirmed
there are a few items that City Council would like to address,
as denoted by Ms. Heller, and to revisit shortly after the
proposed new Zoning Ordinance is adopted.

Mr. Donchez commended the Mayor, Administration, Mr. Kelly,
Tony Hanna, former Director of Community and Economic Development,
Ms. Heller and the whole Department who have worked on the
document for almost 4 years. Mr. Donchez, confirming it is
the first major review and update since 1970, commented that
although it may not please every person overall it is a very
good document, it was an awesome task, and a strong testament
to the work done by many people. Mr. Donchez restated that
several issues as listed by Ms. Heller need to be addressed
including the demolition ordinance, recreational vehicles
and corner lots. Mr. Donchez thought the proposed new Zoning
Ordinance protects neighborhoods and quality of life, and
agreed it is a document to which changes will be made in the
future.

Mr. Recchiuti said he would echo some of the comments made
by President Evans and Mr. Donchez in thanking the Administration
and Ms. Heller for the hard work done on the document. Mr.
Recchiuti also thanked the Administration for updating him
on the process during his first year on City Council.

Mr. Reynolds, communicating that people have strong opinions
about their neighborhoods and the City, noted there was a
lot of input from residents, and from City Council Members.
Mr. Reynolds commented that a lot of times people had to say
no, and there was a lot of compromise among all the groups
and people involved. Mr. Reynolds observed that each person
if drafting a new Zoning Ordinance would probably change a
few things, and probably not everyone is completely happy
as has been said, but the Bureau did the best job they could
and took into account the residents’ input at the many
meetings that were held.

Public Comment

Beall Fowler, 443 Center Street, expressed his agreement
with those who spoke about the proposed new Zoning Ordinance,
and commended all of the work that has been done on the document.
However, Mr. Fowler stressed there is a serious loophole in
Section 1304.04 that allows certain commercial uses in RT
and RG districts. He stated this section was proposed by those
who recognize the potential value of certain limited commercial
activities in residential neighborhoods, the prototype being
the classic corner store that might have sold groceries or
had some other local activity. Most of these have closed and
have become residential, some are in commercial zones, but
others are in residential areas. Mr. Fowler distributed a
handout dated May 4, 2011 to the Members of Council that showed
how this was presented at the Planning Commission meeting
a year ago and apparently to other groups. Mr. Fowler pointed
out that on page two in the upper left hand corner it states
reuse of corner stores and shows an illustration of two buildings
that are clearly corner stores. Noting that is basically how
most pictured the Ordinance, Mr. Fowler said, unfortunately,
Section 1304.04 did not carry these words within it yet instead
used the term corner lot. It has a meaning which could put
in jeopardy a number of residences that sometime in the past
had some sort of business activity, however minor or short-lived.
The draft code addresses a lot, and a portion of the proposed
business space that had been occupied at one time by a business.
Mr. Fowler explained one can imagine a situation 150 years
ago when someone made trinkets which they then advertised
for sale and maybe a month later stopped selling them. At
the time, that was a lawful business, and therefore that home
that has been a residence all that time would still be eligible
for conversion. Mr. Fowler saw this as being an enormous loophole
and was certain that was not what was intended since no zoning
or planning professional would intentionally write such an
absurd provision. Mr. Fowler thought it is important to correct
this quickly because there are many corner residences and
old buildings in Bethlehem that could fall under this loophole
if people who seek loopholes choose to do this. Mr. Fowler
stated it can be fixed easily by adding a sentence that says
the lot shall be at the corner of two streets, and that the
primary building shall be a corner storefront character that
abuts the sidewalk, and shall have a current or former entrance
at the corner defined by two streets. Mr. Fowler urged City
Council to address this matter quickly. Mr. Fowler added that
there are few other things to consider. Pointing out that
the proposed Ordinance talks about the possibility that the
Zoning Hearing Board could regulate the sale of alcohol, Mr.
Fowler stressed that is worrisome because it implies that
corner stores could sell alcohol. He did not think that people
want to open bars in the residential neighborhoods. Mr. Fowler
recommended the addition of a provision stating that no alcohol
shall be sold in any such conversions. He reiterated that
a sentence or clause should be added to indicate that these
uses are to be small in scale and primarily a walk-in trade
for the needs of the neighborhood. Mr. Fowler added this would
help to provide clarification for the Zoning Hearing Board
in considering cases. While acknowledging the City is eager
to pass the new Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Fowler asked that City
Council consider amending it as soon as possible. He added
that passing a resolution of intent would be useful but perhaps
not possible.

Chuck Nyul, 1966 Pinehurst Road, remarked one word comes
to him and that is variance. Expressing his thought that the
proposed Zoning Ordinance has many variances in it, Mr. Nyul
stated it has no beef to it. He remarked that at the end of
the document there should be a sentence advising that all
statements stay as is, there will be no variances, and it
is the written law. Mr. Nyul thought if that can be done then
the City will have a good document. Mr. Nyul said he is tired
of the variances because there is always somebody saying that
they want it their own way.

Meg Keil, Real Estate Manager for Lamar Advertising, Allentown,
noted that Lamar is a national corporation celebrating their
110th birthday this year. Ms. Keil addressed the section of
the proposed new Zoning Ordinance pertaining to electronic
messaging signs and electronic billboards, and the 1,000 foot
spacing between digital signs. Ms. Keil advised that, according
to the Federal Highway Commission as well as PennDot, they
have never been deemed any safer through the last three traffic
studies since 2007. Ms. Keil pointed out that the Ordinance
section makes Bethlehem exclusionary to other companies including
Lamar to do business in the City of Bethlehem with electronic
changing message signs by changing this section from 500 feet
to 1,000 feet. In addition, Ms. Keil stated that some of the
areas where billboards were able to be put have been eliminated
with this new proposed Ordinance. Ms. Keil informed the Members
that the company would like the 500 foot spacing retained
since the Federal Highway Commission as well as PennDot deems
it to be proper spacing in between billboards. Ms. Keil, advising
these signs provide very valuable information, added that
Lamar is the only company in the region affiliated with the
Outdoor Advertising Association of America, and is partnered
with the FBI. The company has been running on the billboards
the FBI most wanted of the very dangerous criminals. Ms. Keil
then passed out a photo of the most recent one that is being
published now and remarked no one knows if he is in the City
or not. Ms. Keil pointed out that they also post Amber Alerts
for missing children. Ms. Keil highlighted the fact that if
a bridge collapsed, or if there is a traffic accident those
messages could go out instantaneously to the public. Addressing
the 100 square foot sign provision on Route 378, Ms. Keil
said this is also an exclusionary provision. She explained
that 100 square feet, whether digital or standard, would not
be a readable message, drivers would slow down, and it would
overturn all of the research done to prove that these digital
billboards are safe. Ms. Keil advised that the Federal Highway
Commission has concluded the most recent study and found there
are no safety issues with digital billboards. The majority
of people look at digital billboards for less than a second.
A traffic study was done in the Berks County area with over
25 digital faces and accidents actually decreased slightly.
Virginia Tech also did a traffic study and traffic accidents
also decreased in that study. Ms. Keil asked City Council
not to impose exclusionary Ordinances that would not allow
companies, including Lamar, to do business in the City of
Bethlehem.

Bruce Haines, 63 W. Church Street, stated he was not satisfied
with the conclusion everyone talked about with not getting
everything they wanted. Mr. Haines informed the Members that
at the first meeting in the Historic District when residents
presented the petitions regarding the buffer zone or the separation
distance they appreciated that taverns and nightclubs were
put in. They felt that they were really looking for the liquor
license establishments or sports bars. It really did not address
the issue and provide the kind of protection and buffer that
they believed was necessary. Mr. Haines remarked that more
recently as Mr. Fowler outlined earlier it came to light that
with the corner lot provisions they actually opened the door
for intrusive businesses to be throughout the Historic District
in corner homes. Therefore, in effect, the City introduced
into the Historic District and the other residential districts
the option of a sports bar open until 2:00 a.m. on corner
lots. Mr. Haines stressed that, instead of preserving the
neighborhood, the corner lot provision is destroying it and
providing opportunity to destroy one of the most unique characteristics
of the City. Mr. Haines communicated that, with the provisions
on the corner lots, and noting there are many of them including
Herron Funeral Home, for example, those locations could become
a sports bar. Mr. Haines asserted there are no restrictions
other than adult entertainment and fried foods. Mr. Haines
pointed out that the corner lots within the residential districts
have more pervasive uses than does the commercial business
district. Mr. Haines thought this is one of those unintended
consequences of wording that started out with a good idea,
which is to preserve the concept of a corner store for the
neighborhood. Mr. Haines remarked the way the Ordinance is
written provides only two restrictive uses that are adult
entertainment and fried foods. Observing no one was aware
of this until recently when it was brought up, Mr. Haines
said he would like to think that City Council would change
it before it is taken back to the Planning Commission.

Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, mentioned that dating
back to the Sasaki study on the South Side it was determined
that the stability of the South Side is best served by single
families owning the property. At that time, Mr. Antalics did
a study and the ratio of rented properties to family owned
was almost 5 to 1. For rental properties owned by non-resident
landlords almost 90% were student housing, and one owner owned
68 properties on the South Side rented to students. Mr. Antalics
remarked that the definition of family in Zoning was very
broad in the past so there could have been a family of students.
Mr. Antalics pointed out that, recently, there has been new
construction on the South Side designed for student housing,
and the signs state for student housing only which is contradictory
to the studies the City has done and paid for about stabilizing
the welfare of the South Side by maintaining single family
residential owned properties. Mr. Antalics wondered when these
permits to build are issued does one determine what the purpose
is of that building, and can the City restrict building designed
for student housing. Mr. Antalics stressed if a single family
wished to move to the South Side and rent a property they
could not because the landlord would not rent to them because
he only rents to students. Mr. Antalics thought there are
a number of loopholes in the Zoning system in terms of definitions.
He wondered whether the City considers student housing to
be multi-family housing. Mr. Antalics communicated that, if
the City wishes to improve the welfare of the South Side,
the issue of student housing and future building should be
looked at carefully, and the Zoning codes should be amended
to promote stability of single family housing on the South
Side.

Robert Romeril, 26 W. Market Street, pointed out that many
people worked hard on the proposed new Zoning Ordinance. Focusing
on Section 1304.04, Mr. Romeril observed that the Historic
District is too small to support stores. He continued on to
point out that the streets are too small to support trucks,
and already have many school buses. Mr. Romeril stated that,
if this corner store provision cannot be changed, it should
certainly be amended and Mr. Fowler’s amendment is a
way to do this. Mr. Romeril remarked that the Historic District
is a residential district and is defined as such, and mixed
use was never used. Mr. Romeril emphasized that residents
do not want their district to turn into a commercial district.
Mr. Romeril suggested focusing on ensuring that the Historic
District be residential.

Craig Liles, 1051 Delaware Avenue, Fountain Hill, related
that in the past these corner properties have been, for example,
neighborhood groceries, convenience stores, or hair salons.
Typically, there is a different layout that is not conducive
to residential use. Mr. Liles said in his experience he has
seen investors buy these properties at deeply discounted prices
and convert them into multi-unit apartment buildings, or even
a rooming house. They are almost never owner-occupied and
are not maintained well. On the contrary, the commercial properties
that are small businesses are owned by the occupant and who
generally takes pride in their storefront and cares about
the reputation and the will of the neighborhood. Mr. Liles
continued on to say that investment property and commercial
buyers are looking to make money, but the commercial use commands
a higher price than multi-unit investment properties. This
is important because property values are based on comparable
sales and when a property sells for less it impacts the value
of the rest of the neighborhood negatively. He added that
lenders use these comparable sales to qualify the amounts
of a loan. The buyer’s ability to borrow would become
a limiting factor, and how much they can pay the seller, thus
driving the neighborhood values down further. Mr. Liles felt
that it is in everyone’s interest to support the proposed
Ordinance allowing for the highest and best use of these corner
properties.

Christine Stevens, 54 E. Market Street, advised she is on
the Board of Directors of the Bethlehem Historic District
and the Bethlehem Historic Partnership Association. Noting
she would reiterate what Mr. Fowler, Mr. Romeril, and Mr.
Haines has said, Ms. Stevens stated she is at this meeting
to voice her concern and objection to the simple wording of
Section 1304.04 and specifically subsection (a) (1) which
states that the lot shall be on the corner of two streets.
Ms. Stevens highlighted the fact that these words are not
consistent with power point images that were distributed at
the previous hearings and meetings on the proposed new Zoning
Ordinance. The images show a building with a truncated corner
and the wording states that the building must be on a corner.
Ms. Stevens related that as an elected official of her neighborhood
organization she must speak out for her special residential
Historic neighborhood. Ms. Stevens informed the Members there
is an intense urgency for further clarification of a corner
property in that an individual is interested in purchasing
476 N. New Street, currently The Bethlehem Inn, a bed and
breakfast owned by a husband and wife since 1987. During their
25 years of ownership, they have raised their three children
there, so it was an owner-occupied residence, which is granted
a variance to do so. Ms. Stevens pointed out that the man
interested in purchasing this property intends on using the
entire residential building for his financial consulting firm
for community banking, as his application for a special exception
indicates, and it cites Section 1304.04. Ms. Stevens noted
the individual does not offer a product which residents can
use, as his clients are commercial community banks. Ms. Stevens
remarked that commercial products belong in a commercial district,
not in a residential one. Under the new proposed Zoning Ordinance,
specifically Section 1304.04, he is able to convert this once
owner-occupied residence into a 100% commercial, non-owner
occupied building simply because the structure exists on a
lot on a corner of two streets and was previously used as
commercial in nature. Ms. Stevens stressed that, by not further
clarifying the wording in Section 1304.04, a dangerous precedent
will be set in regards to the residential Historic District.
This would be the first non-owner-occupied 100% commercial
business serving a commercial industry in a residential neighborhood.
Ms. Stevens, affirming her understanding that a lot of energy
has gone into the proposed new Zoning Ordinance, asked City
Council to be lawfully creative in incorporating the new clarification
into the existing document either through an addendum or through
a motion indicating that further clarification is needed and
is being worked on. Ms. Stevens informed the Members that
the party interested in 476 N. New Street has asked for a
continuance until the August 22, 2012 Zoning Hearing Board
meeting that occurs after City Council would approve the new
Zoning Ordinance.

Jeff Chandler, of Adams Outdoor Advertising, noted that
the company has been located in the City of Bethlehem for
18 years. They are the largest billboard company in the Lehigh
Valley with 1,007 billboard displays and 13 digital displays.
Mr. Chandler stated the company’s position that they
would like to have the digital spacing remain at 1,000 feet.
Mr. Chandler advised that the PennDot digital spacing is indeed
500 feet for different reasons. He continued on to advise
that Hanover Township is at 1,500 feet and Allentown is 1,000
feet spacing. Mr. Chandler, informing the Members there are
no digital displays on Route 22 or I-78 that are 500 feet,
said they are all 1,000 feet or greater. Mr. Chandler pointed
out that City planners have researched this significantly
and agree with the 1,000 foot spacing.

John Brew, 262 E. Market Street, commented that along Market
Street there are a number of big buildings that have been
turned into apartment buildings or condominiums. Noting it
has been said that he is just a businessman coming in and
taking a building, Mr. Brew explained the reason he wants
to purchase 476 N. New Street is that he loves Historic Bethlehem
and he wants to keep the building the way it is, in its historic
beauty. Mr. Brew pointed out that at Market Street and Center
Street there is a funeral home which is superbly kept, and
on the other side of the street is a bed and breakfast that
is also beautifully kept. Across the corner there is an apartment
building that Mr. Brew did not think is kept at the historic
level that people enjoy seeing. Mr. Brew continued on to say
at High Street there is a dentist’s office with apartments
above and well kept in an incredible way. But, across the
street there is an old building with a widow’s peak
at the top that is an apartment building, it is poorly kept
and is withering away. Mr. Brew stated that he keeps his home
at 262 E. Market Street in impeccable condition and that is
what he is looking for in terms of moving his offices into
Historic Bethlehem, and to keep 476 N. New Street at the level
it was when it was built in 1840. Mr. Brew communicated that,
in looking at the proposed new Zoning Ordinance and the fact
that it is preserving Bethlehem, it might not be the perfect
residential situation that one thinks of in the past, but
the past has a commercial use that has been indigenous to
the community. In thinking about how Bethlehem has evolved,
Mr. Brew said it is really the people in Bethlehem who have
kept the historic integrity. However, he pointed out it costs
money to keep up these historic homes so when he looks at
the Ordinance and the opportunity to move his offices into
the property on New Street he looks at this in that it will
protect this property from being an apartment building. He
remarked it is a perfect group home because it has many bathrooms.
Stating that these are homes that had a different use at different
times, Mr. Brew commented he is just offering his own support
in terms of keeping that house in the way it should be, restoring
its historic integrity to the community, and tourists can
enjoy Historic Bethlehem as what it was.

Peter Pullman, Sales Manager with Lamar Outdoor Advertising,
handed out a report of multiple traffic studies. Mr. Pullman
asked for consideration of one other modification to the digital
sign Ordinance. Noting it states a 10 second dwell time between
changes of messages, Mr. Pullman asked that on the interstate
highways, whether U.S. 22 or Route 378, an 8 second dwell
time be considered. Mr. Pullman stated this is due to the
rate of flow and speed of the traffic on those routes. Mr.
Pullman said the time frame of 8 seconds would be more suitable
for that change. The City of Allentown allows an 8 second
dwell time on the interstate and limited access highways,
and for the secondary roadways it stayed at 10 seconds. Mr.
Pullman reiterated the company’s thoughts on asking
for consideration of the 500 foot spacing between the digital
signs as it is with the traditional signs.

Mary Pongracz, 321 W. 4th Street, relating that she attended
many of the meetings about the proposed new Zoning Ordinance,
said there are several things that came to her attention.
One is that people keep saying North Side and South Side.
Ms. Pongracz recalled she has said continuously that the West
Side has an identity of its own. It should be North and South
in Northampton County, and a West Side of Bethlehem with a
distinct culture and identity in Lehigh County. She stressed
this has not been addressed. Ms. Pongracz observed the proposed
new Zoning Ordinance is a working document, it is not the
law of the land, and it is a code that seems to cover most
of the things that need to be done. Ms. Pongracz explained
a reason she is not happy is because of something that looks
like it is from outer space on top of the Wells Fargo building,
by architect A. W. Leh, on the South Side. She further highlighted
the fact that Broughal Middle School which also was an A.
W. Leh building was taken down and she is not happy with that
either. Ms. Pongracz pointed out there is more than one Historic
District in the City of Bethlehem that is the North Side Historic
District and the South Side Historic District where she lives
and of which she is proud. Ms. Pongracz stressed there needs
to be an adjustment in some of the thinking to reflect the
fact that people live in the City of Bethlehem and need to
work together. She emphasized there are some wonderful examples
of adaptive reuse of land such as on the former Bethlehem
Steel property where there is now a casino and SteelStacks.
Ms. Pongracz observed when there are creative people in the
community there are creative solutions.

Tim Stevens, 54 E. Market Street, addressed provisions of
Section 1304.04. Expressing his support for what has been
said, Mr. Stevens added that he is a member of the Bethlehem
Historic District, he acknowledged the fact that there are
other historic districts in Bethlehem, and he said the way
the section is worded causes a significant problem. Mr. Stevens
asked City Council to amend the section. Mr. Stevens stated
his support for what has been proposed in that either there
is an exemption for the historic districts, and if not he
proposes a clear inserted definition of a corner store lot
provision and define that with a truncated corner. Mr. Stevens
expressed that definition will go a long way in addressing
what the initial intent was when presented to the public.
Mr. Stevens explained there is urgency to this because there
is a property on the corner of New and Market Street that
is a concern of turning into a commercial property. Mr. Stevens
explained in order to prevent that it is being suggested that
there be a motion by Council to at least consider an amendment
at this point in that there is a legal question with respect
to the pending Ordinance and to properly address the matter.
Mr. Stevens asked that a motion be considered so there is
not a concern with a situation where a commercial use of a
property is granted and slips through the cracks with that
particular wording in this particular time frame. Mr. Stevens
stressed this needs to be done right away, otherwise there
will be problems, and there will be a legal challenge if the
zoning goes forward with respect to the New and Market Street
property. He continued on to say there will be a further legal
challenge with respect to the language of Section 1304.04
because it simply is too broad. Mr. Stevens informed the assembly
that he and his wife moved into this area of downtown Bethlehem
because it was such a beautiful residential neighborhood.
Observing there are certain special exceptions and there could
be other uses, Mr. Stevens stressed what this proposed Section
does is eviscerates a residential zoning district. He remarked
someone could put in a nail salon, tailor, bar, or whatever
the commercial enterprise is and in particular in their neighborhood
where there have been various commercial uses. Mr. Stevens
urged Council to take this seriously and address the concerns
of neighbors.

Robert Virgilio, 476 N. New Street, affirmed that he and
his wife Suzanne own the property at 476 N. New Street, also
known as the Bethlehem Inn. They also own 522-518 Long Street
which is the Granola Factory. He denoted that both properties
are in the Historic District. Mr. Virgilio handed out a photograph
to City Council from 1987 when they bought the property that
was a dentist’s office and apartments. Mr. Virgilio
said, at the time, a bed and breakfast concept was the best
use for the building. He pointed out that when someone purchases
a large building in the Historic District, which many are,
the person has to be able to afford to buy it. Advising he
owns two small businesses with his wife, one of which is a
small bakery and a corner store, Mr. Virgilio stressed he
does not believe there is one shop owner in Bethlehem who
could survive in the Historic District buying a building.
Mr. Virgilio said he does not quite grasp the idea that everyone
will have a corner grocery store since it is just not economical.
Mr. Virgilio thought in some cases this Ordinance is good
when it addresses corner properties and believed there still
needs to be a special exception granted. Expressing it would
not be easy, Mr. Virgilio recalled in 1988 when he opened
The Bethlehem Inn it was said there would be a bed and breakfast
on every corner. Mr. Virgilio pointed out that he and his
wife raised their children at this bed and breakfast because
they chose to change it from apartments. Mr. Virgilio emphasized
that they raised their children and maintained their home
in the Historic District because that was economical and gave
them the lifestyle they wanted. Mr. Virgilio thought that
the proposed new Zoning Ordinance has merit. Mr. Virgilio
stated that some of his neighbors on the other side of Market
Street live between four offices, and he has a neighbor who
runs his building as an office but is not approved. Mr. Virgilio
remarked this is a lot better than having rental properties,
and they are well maintained. Mr. Virgilio pointed out that
the bed and breakfast idea and offices have not been a detriment
to the historic district, and provide an alternative to maintain
and operate large old buildings in the historic district.
Commending Mr. Brew for going through this legally and doing
things the proper way, Mr. Virgilio commented there are people
in the historic district who are not officially operating
offices but choose to use that as a means to write off tax
deductions. Mr. Virgilio thought it is a good Ordinance with
some fine tuning. Mr. Virgilio added it is not so easy to
be opening a tattoo parlor or a coffee shop, but when something
comes around that is good, it should be considered.

President Evans, affirming there will be no vote on the
proposed new Zoning Ordinance tonight, stated that the Ordinance
will be placed on the July 17 Council Agenda for First Reading.

The Public Hearing was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Minutes of June 19, 2012 were approved.

3. PUBLIC COMMENT

Amendments to Use Permit Agreements for Musikfest

Chuck Nyul, 1966 Pinehurst Road, addressed Resolution 9 B,
Authorizing Amendments to Use Permit Agreements for Musikfest.
Mr. Nyul wondered whether is it correct that Musikfest wants
to save money and use some of their own policing. President
Evans stated that is correct, it will be in the overnight
hours, and will include watching their equipment and property.
Mr. Nyul expressed his disagreement and said he does not see
Musikfest putting anything into the City tax fund and the
school tax fund. He continued on to express that the streets
are maintained by tax money, including the City’s Police
and Fire, but Musikfest wants to use their own security on
the streets. Mr. Nyul remarked that Mayfair did the same thing
in Allentown last year; however, they put chain link fence
around Cedar Crest Park and collected money to go in. Mr.
Nyul said if Musikfest wants to put a chain link fence all
around the property he has no problem with that, but as long
as it is in the City of Bethlehem the tax money is taking
care of the property in the City and that is where it should
stay.

The Clerk read a memorandum dated June 18, 2012 from Robert
A. Pfenning, City Controller, to which was attached a proposed
amendment to Article 111 – City Controller, Section
111.01 – Powers and Duties, and Section 111.02 –
To Review and Approve Warrants for Payment.

President Evans stated the Ordinance can be placed on the
July 17 Agenda for First Reading, unless the Finance Committee
wishes to review the matter.

D. City Clerk – Liquor License Transfer Request –
Updated Resolution

The Clerk read a memorandum dated June 27, 2012 to the Members
of City Council to which was attached a proposed Resolution
that encompasses the procedures and requirements in connection
with Liquor License Transfer requests, including legal advertisement.
The proposed Resolution consolidates Resolutions 15,083 and
2009-98 adopted previously.

President Evans stated the Resolution will be placed on
the July 17 Agenda.

The Clerk read a memorandum dated June 27, 2012 from Darlene
L. Heller, Director of Planning and Zoning, to which was attached
a proposed Resolution outlining an updated fee schedule for
zoning appeals, continuances, additional hearings, curative
amendments/validity challenges and zoning certifications.
Section 1324.03, Fees, of the pending new Zoning Ordinance
does not specifically list filing fees, but refers to a “fee
schedule enacted by City Council, which was adopted by Resolution
and which may be revised from time to time”. It is requested
that the Resolution be reviewed and considered so that it
can be acted upon simultaneously with the action on the new
Zoning Ordinance. Also attached was a chart for comparison
of fees in other nearby communities.

President Evans stated the Resolution will be placed on
the August 7 Agenda.

The Clerk read a memorandum dated June 29, 2012 stating
that the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board advised there is
an error on Resolution 2012-100 that approved the Intermunicipal
Transfer of Retail Restaurant Liquor License No. R-6660 to
Steel Pub at 320 East First Street. Resolution 2012-100 incorrectly
states “Steel Pub, Inc.”. The Resolution should
be changed to “Steel Pub, LLC”.

President Evans stated that Resolution 9 H is listed on
the Agenda.

6. REPORTS

A. President of Council

President Evans re-announced that the time of City Council’s
First Meeting in August on Tuesday, August 7 is rescheduled
to 5:30 PM.

Mr. Reynolds stated he will be voting no on Bill No. 18 –
2012. He pointed out that the proposed new Zoning Ordinance
has a 500 foot buffer provision that is less exclusionary.
Mr. Reynolds thought the 1,000 foot buffer is too exclusionary
and added that it grew out of support for a group of residents
who attempted to stop a treatment facility proposed on Dewberry
Avenue that he also supported. However, Mr. Reynolds thought
for a 1,000 foot buffer the negatives outweigh the positives,
and it could lead to litigation. Mr. Reynolds highlighted
the fact that a 500 foot buffer is in the proposed new Zoning
Ordinance, and commented that Council’s job is to think
about the future as well.

President Evans advised he will continue to support the idea
of a buffer to send a clear message that residential treatment
facilities while needed are needed in locations that are away
from important and protected areas that are playgrounds and
schools where there are youth who are the most vulnerable.
President Evans, expressing that the 1,000 buffer is important,
noted while there could be a grey area, 500 or 1,000 feet
would not automatically mean winning or losing a lawsuit.
President Evans, affirming that the Bill passed on First Reading
by a 6 to 0 vote, observed there was strong support for it
at that time, although tonight two Members of Council are
not at the Meeting. President Evans stated it is important
to have the final vote on the Bill tonight in the affirmative,
in view of the fact that the proposed new Zoning Ordinance
is still in process, and residential treatment facilities
could still be requested.

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Recchiuti sponsored Resolution 2012-106
that authorized a Use Permit Agreement between Touchstone
Theatre and the City for use of Parham Park on East Fourth
Street for the Touchstone Theatre Fundraiser to be held on
July 21, 2012, according to the Agreement.

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Recchiuti sponsored Resolution 2012-107
that authorized Amendment No. 1 to Use Permit Agreements between
ArtsQuest and the City for use of certain Streets and Festival
Sites for Musikfest, according to the Agreements.

Mr. Donchez and Mr. Recchiuti sponsored Resolution 2012-109
that transferred $13,125 in the General Fund Budget from the
Professional Services Account to the Temporary Help Account
for a three month extension for a contract employee in the
Tax Bureau.

Mr. Recchiuti and Mrs. Belinski sponsored Resolution 2012-112
that granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install temporary
murals to the buildings at 409 and 441 Wyandotte Street and
301 Broadway.

Chairman Donchez announced a Public Safety Committee meeting
to be held on July 25, 2012 at 7:00 PM on Operational Assessment
– Dewberry Avenue EMS Facility, and Updates on Police,
Fire, and EMS Departments.

11. PUBLIC COMMENT

Former Jack Jones Building - West Broad Street and Third
Avenue

Evelyn Beckman, 310 W. Broad Street, asked City Council what
the differences would be with the former Jack Jones building
on West Broad Street and Third Avenue and the current Ordinances.
Mayor Callahan replied there have been extensive conversations
about the former Jack Jones Buick building and the new project
that has been proposed for that corner. Mayor Callahan noted
nothing in any of those discussions has come up with any change.
Ms. Beckman said she understands that the present zoning will
be the same as the new zoning. Mayor Callahan replied that
is correct. Ms. Beckman advised that she worked on the Preservation
Task Force and they talked about demolition permits, what
the City can do to help preserve certain buildings, what not
to do, and what requirements there are, but nothing has happened
yet as far as she knows. President Evans explained that the
demolition ordinance will be reviewed at a Community Development
Committee meeting by Chairman David DiGiacinto who is not
at the Meeting this evening. President Evans affirmed that
is not part of the proposed new Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Beckman
asked if there is any timeframe. President Evans, confirming
there are a few amendments that will be worked on, noted that
City Council would like to review them in the Fall. Ms. Beckman
commented that, as it stands now, just the appropriate Historic
Districts are protected somewhat.

Five Year Financial Plan; Treatment Centers

Chuck Nyul, 1966 Pinehurst Road, held up a copy of the Five
Year plan issued by Mayor Callahan in 2008. Mr. Nyul said
it is now the 4th year, and the City spent $35 million worth
of City host fund money without the taxpayers getting a dime
of it. Mr. Nyul said there have been better pensions and better
salaries, and coming into the 5th year this year the City
will get about $10 million more. Mr. Nyul stated he is looking
for a tax deduction of some kind so he will come back week
after week with the 5 year plan until the City gets to the
budget and has to set aside $10 million dollars of the host
fee. Mr. Nyul said he wants to see what is done with this
money and if Council will be the people the residents voted
for, who are not afraid to stand up and say enough is enough
and do something for the citizens of Bethlehem. Mr. Nyul commented
on the rehabilitation treatment center that was approved by
the Zoning Hearing Board. Affirming that he is an alcoholic,
Mr. Nyul said if he did not stop 22 years ago he would not
be standing here. While advising he did a lot of soul searching,
Mr. Nyul stated that putting this rehabilitation center in
the City is a mistake. Mr. Nyul pointed out there are many
empty warehouses in the Airport area with plenty of space
for something like that.

Parking Petition – Merchants

Brian Tallarico, owner of Tallarico’s Chocolates at
26 E. Third Street, submitted a petition to City Council that
he noted was signed by many but not all merchants in Bethlehem.
Mr. Tallarico read the petition, as follows: We the merchants
of Bethlehem hereby petition the City and the Bethlehem Parking
Authority to change the daily parking meter time of enforcement
from the current 8:00 am until 9:00 pm hours to be 8:00 am
until 6:00 pm. The current enforcement until 9:00 pm is negatively
affecting our businesses, our customers, and their experiences
in perception of this City. This late enforcement is also
hindering economic development. Meanwhile our competition,
the Promenade Shops, Lehigh Valley Mall, The Sands and Steel
Stacks have free parking. The Bethlehem Parking Authority
is aggressive, and certainly late enforcement has and continues
to deter and chase the patrons from our downtowns in this
still struggling economy.

Illick’s Mill; Mercantile Tax; Human Relations Commission

Tom Carroll, 248 E. Union Boulevard, noted that for a long
time the City has been owed an amount of money in excess of
$100,000 from the Illick’s Mill project and no one has
said a word. He remarked it has not been collected, and no
one is saying anything about it although it should show up
on an audit. Mr. Carroll wanted to know why the City has allowed
that to happen while at the same time it has now aggressively
gone after so called merchants who allegedly owe Mercantile
Tax. Mr. Carroll noted the City hired a firm from Bridgeport,
Pennsylvania to send out letters to people who owe Mercantile
Tax saying they did not pay it and they better pay or they
will be in trouble. Mr. Carroll said many of the people who
got those letters had paid the taxes, and how those names
got on that list is questionable. Mr. Carroll, pointing out
that a Human Relations Commission Ordinance was adopted last
year and it was said how vital it was, remarked today a year
later there are no meetings and it is left not completely
filled.

Parking Meters – Time; Conditional Use

Al Bernotas, 1004 Johnston Drive, expressed his support
for changing the time of the parking meters from 9:00 pm to
6:00 pm. He commented that small business owners always supported
Bethlehem, and there are some towns across the United States
in commercial districts that do not charge for parking. They
have a one hour limit and the people move in and out. Mr.
Bernotas, turning to the proposed new Zoning Ordinance, stated
a tool that City Council can use is called Conditional Use.
Mr. Bernotas pointed out there are certain things that happen
in the City that he gets precluded from talking about because
he does not live within 300 feet. He added there is no one
from Council at Zoning meetings. Mr. Bernotas advised he cannot
speak about billboards because there are none within 300 feet
from his home. Mr. Bernotas thought that for issues like that
which are broader in scope than the 300 feet, City Council
should have someone involved and he said conditional use will
do that.

Dana Grubb, 2420 Henderson Place, thought that in Council
chambers it happens quite a bit that people do not get answers.
Focusing on the proposed new Zoning Ordinance and the corner
lot provisions, Mr. Grubb said he is sure many of the residents
along Easton Avenue at one time were concerned about commercial
uses being injected into their neighborhood. Mr. Grubb highlighted
the fact that now there is a commercial strip on Easton Avenue
that is going to be changed from residential to commercial
so that needs to be kept in mind. Mr. Grubb, referring to
the petition brought by Brian Tallarico to the Meeting this
evening, remarked people read in the newspapers that everyone
is on board with everything that has been happening with the
changes in parking in Bethlehem. However, Mr. Grubb pointed
out that not everyone is on board. Mr. Grubb observed that
with the aggressive enforcement, increased hours, and increased
fees people are losing business. He queried would it not make
more sense to shrink the hours, drop the fees, and encourage
people to come and shop so the City can increase the Mercantile
and EIT taxes that are collected.

Alarm Fee Ordinance

Stephen Antalics, 737 Ridge Street, expressed his concern
about having to pay a fee to have a burglar alarm in his home
and also having to pay a fee for a false alarm. Mr. Antalics
pointed out that a burglar alarm assists the Police force.
He thought if criminals see a sign for a burglar alarm, they
would not go to that residence. In some cases, Mr. Antalics
remarked that criminals could be captured simply with the
systems that have a silent alarm, again helping the Police.
Mr. Antalics pointed out that someone who does not have an
alarm calls the Police who would have to come out anyway and
there would be no charge. Mr. Antalics remarked this logic
defies him. Mr. Antalics asked City Council to look at the
Ordinance from the perspective that burglar alarms are a Police
assist rather than a nuisance to the community.